Quote:
|
Originally Posted by ScaredWebWarrior
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Graham
In all of the above you have managed to *totally* miss the point.
|
No, I didn't miss the point. The point you were trying to make is just one way of looking at the issue - namely the comparative risk involved.
I was showing how each one could be rationalised, which I thought was important since your view is that anyone that doesn't rationalise it your way is wrong. |
"Rationalising" the risk doesn't mean that that rationalisation is valid or sensible. All of the responses you posted were not logical or sensible representations of the facts.
Quote:
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Graham
Yet in *ALL* of the above cases, people's *perceptions* of risks were totally at odds with what the *actual* risks were and they took the *more* dangerous option open to them.
|
No - it's your evaluation that such is the case.
|
No, ScaredWebWarrior, these are *demonstrable* and *provable* facts. Trying to dismiss them with superficial "rationalisations" does not change that.
Quote:
|
And since you have decided that the comparative risks are what you say they are, then everyone else's evaluation of those risks must by your definition be wrong.
|
Where did I say "everyone else"? Answer, I didn't. There are some who, like me, have some understanding of the nature of risk and who don't simply assume that the headlines tell the whole story. Unfortunately there are also those who don't bother to actually think logically about the dangers and take the *more* risky choice.
[quopte]Just because the risk of shooting myself in russian roulette is less than not shooting myself doesn't mean that playing the game is a good idea.[/quote]
What on earth is this nonsense trying to prove, except that you seem to have missed the point again? Try looking at the examples I gave again and see what choices people made (eg use trains/ don't use trains) and the relative dangers of each (more likely to die on the road than on trains) and try to understand what I'm talking about.
Quote:
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Graham
By actually bothering to *think* instead of letting others tell us (especially those in the tabloid media) what our opinions should be.
By *not* simply saying "well the government or some senior Policeman says there's a threat, so we have to give up our basic freedoms in order to be safe"
By actually using our *own* brains for once.
|
Based on those statements I take it you consider that only you use your brain and only you are impervious to outside influence.
|
And once again you try to put words into my mouth
I have not said anything of the sort, please don't imply that I have.
Quote:
|
Since I doubt you did all the research that determined the comparative risks as you describe them I must assume you relied on some other party for that information.
|
Yes, I did and if you want you can check the figures for yourself.
Take a look at
http://www.pacts.org.uk/policy/brief...tistics_uk.htm
Fatalities per billion passenger kilometres:
Motor cycle/moped 112
Foot 48
Pedal cycle 33
Car 3
Van 0.9
Rail 0.1
You are *THREE HUNDRED* times more likely to be killed in a car accident than a rail accident, yet when people were asked whether they would feel safe on the railways, many of them said "no" and that they'd go back to cars!
Quote:
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Graham
And I'm saying that just because the government says "we need to take away these rights for your own safety" it's not that straightforward either.
|
Indeed, any government that tells you it's restricting your personal freedoms for your own good is tyring to act out the 1984 scenario.
But that's not quite how everyone hears it..
|
That is very evident.
Quote:
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Graham
If you are asking me to 100% categorically *prove* the above, then, no, of course I can't, nor can I go up to Osama Bin Laden et al and ask their motivations.
|
OK, so we don't know that they're playing some complex psychological game - they might simply be out to kill us all.
|
Can you *really* say that that is a realistic scenario? Do you really think that the *terrorists* consider that to be an achievable aim? Whatever else they may be, they're not stupid.
Quote:
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Graham
But perhaps you can suggest what *other* motivations the terrorists might have, because I have thought a lot about this and cannot see any other reasonable explanation (or even "unreasonable" explanation) for what they are doing.
Their aim cannot simply be to "Kill the infidel". Whatever their beliefs may be, they are not stupid and realise that they will not be able to "wipe out the West" by sheer weight of numbers.
|
Here you're asking me for alternative motivations, yet at the same time trying to deduce that "kill the infidel" is inpractical and therefore not a candidate.
|
Yes, that is what I'm asking for and yes, I believe that "kill the infidel" is not practical.
Quote:
Let's look at some alternative motivations. Maybe it is just "kill the infidel" - maybe they are stupid enough to believe they can achieve it. Maybe they believe the person that tells them they can achieve it.
If that person then also uses their religion to colour that belief and next thing we have these people who actually believe that God is helping them to achieve that seemingly impossibe goal.
Beginning to sound a bit like our fanatical extremists, I think.
|
Yes, and I'm sure they are saying "God is on our side" and maybe I'm wrong for thinking that they're capable of thinking logically about the subject because that is what I would do, however I think their motivations are more subtle than that.
Quote:
But I am equally prepared to consider that they envy us for the 'power' that the west has. The fact that we have sex, drugs and rock & roll, and they haven't. In fact, any number of reasons why they are jealous of us.
Or they hate us. For not being Muslims. For being Christians.
|
Or because we *have* "sex and drugs and rock & roll" and we are "exporting" that to their lands and trying to "corrupt the faithful".
Quote:
|
Because they still hate us for the Crusades.
|
I think they hate us more for recent history than the Crusades.
[qutoe]Because we don't believe in Allah like they do. Because we're not monotheistic (the Christians that believe in the trinity, anyway.) For being American. For being richer.[/quote]
Possibly, apart from the last one (who has all the oil?)
Quote:
|
In fact, I don't even think that any number of terrorists all have the same motivation. It's just that the ultimate goal suits them equally.
|
Again, possibly true.
Quote:
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Graham
So what can they do? They can attack us or threaten us in ways that make us *react* to what they do.
|
That's your conclusion because it suits your argument. It's not in any way the only inevitable conclusion.
|
No, but it follows from the evidence and given a choice between "they're just trying to kill us all" and "they're trying to make us react and make life hard from us", I know which I think sounds more logical.
Quote:
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Graham
The Muslim terrorists aim is, I believe, primarily to get the West out of the Middle East and related areas so that they can create their idea of an Islamic state. Since they cannot do this by force of arms, they do it by attacking economic or civilian targets.
|
We were suffering casualties from the 'insurgents' from very early on after the defeat of Saddam. That wasn't about pushing out the 'west' to make way for an Islamic state. That was about a group wanting to take control in post-Saddam Iraq. It's just that we won't let them. And boy, do they hate that!
|
Well if someone had invaded *your* country and then tried to impose what could be perceived as a "puppet government" whose main aim was to do the occupying power's bidding, what would *you* do?
See also the French Resistance in WWII...!
Quote:
|
It may well be true that they also want to create an Islamic state - probably along the fundamentalist lines, since that's the most attractive to the power hungry.
|
Or, as they see themselves, "the Faithful", which puts a different spin on it.
Quote:
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Graham
Their hope is, I think, that we respond in irrational and "knee jerk" ways by passing laws to restrict freedoms with the result that they cause unrest and make life so difficult and repressive for us *here* that we won't have the time or the money to go and interefere in their "back yards".
|
So you think it is more likely that these people think in terms of a 'domino effect' - instill fear, cause governmental restrictions, generate disaffection - rather than simply 'kill' and dominate?
|
Yes, I do.
Quote:
That wonderful quote, attributed to Sherlock Holmes:
Quote:
|
when you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth
|
I think you have taken this to mean that the improbable must be true. I suggest we consider those 'impossibilities' first.
|
I'm well aware of the quote. I'm also well aware that Conan Doyle cheated and some of Holmes' deductions are more than a little ropey.
And, no, I don't think that "the improbable *must* be true", but the "impossibilities" seem a lot less likely to me.
Quote:
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Graham
If we fall for this trap, we give them a victory and the more liberties we give up here, the greater their success.
If we do this, the terrorists *WIN*.
|
That is your conclusion, and you love repeating it, but the statement is no stronger for it's repetition, because it is based on your singular line of reasoning.
|
The following is not meant to sound or be patronising, but I'm pleased to see that at least you are thinking about this. If you can demonstrate faults or fallacies in my reasoning, please, I would welcome seeing them so I can find out whether it stands up to scrutiny.
But from everything I have seen, I believe my conclusions are valid.
__________________
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Xaccers
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Graham
Certainly, as soon as you answer me this one:
A person with a beard, of Middle Eastern appearance possibly wearing some sort of hat or cap and robes and talking in a funny language is most likely to be:
A) An Islamic Fundamentalist Terrorist.
B) An innocent person.
|
Answer my question first.
Here, I'll repeat it for you again so that you don't have to bother looking it up |
The point is, Xaccers, I am *not* going to answer that question.
My response of answering another question was to *demonstrate* that the question you asked is unhelpful to the debate because it makes assumptions about the answer and I'm not going to fall into the (obvious) trap.
__________________
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Pierre
Al-Qaedas goal is to make islam the only religion in the world.
We are all infidels and therefore death to us is the only answer, they cannot bear us sharing the same planet as we are an abomination.
|
Yes, I'm sure that's correct, but I think all but the the most fanatical of them realise that they can't simply kill us all, so they need to find *other* methods of getting rid of us and the first step on that path is to destroy our *societies* and that, I think, is what they aim to do with their attacks.